What was the logic behind the church sermon changes?

[Holy Athena]

Requiring them to have rings to give to a bishop to hold a sermon makes zero sense. Do my people just.. not go to church ever anymore cuz "reasons"?

Or am I missing something?

[hyoka]

Originally posted by Holy Athena:

Requiring them to have rings to give to a bishop to hold a sermon makes zero sense. Do my people just.. not go to church ever anymore cuz "reasons"?

Or am I missing something?

I didn't really understand your question, but everyone goes to church without exception
if there are enough seats

[Holy Athena]

Originally posted by hyoka:

Originally posted by Holy Athena:

Requiring them to have rings to give to a bishop to hold a sermon makes zero sense. Do my people just.. not go to church ever anymore cuz "reasons"?

Or am I missing something?

I didn't really understand your question, but everyone goes to church without exception
if there are enough seats

The update changes the requirement need for church services. Now it requires rings.

[SemtexMan47]

Just one less thing to repetitively micromanage every day I guess.

[hyoka]

Originally posted by Holy Athena:

Originally posted by hyoka:

I didn't really understand your question, but everyone goes to church without exception
if there are enough seats

The update changes the requirement need for church services. Now it requires rings.

We'll have to see how it affects the game

[darth_lame-o]

I liked the way sermons were handled before. Religion was a very important part of Medieval life and culture. It just felt natural and immersive for the setting that everyone attends church regularly and gets upset if they can't attend. Now they only attend if you force them to because you bribed the bishop into holding a sermon?

Don't get me wrong. I love almost everything about this update, especially the streamlining of the management mechanics and the overhaul to crime. But this one decision just makes no sense to me.

[Holy Athena]

Originally posted by darth_lame-o:

I liked the way sermons were handled before. Religion was a very important part of Medieval life and culture. It just felt natural and immersive for the setting that everyone attends church regularly and gets upset if they can't attend. Now they only attend if you force them to because you bribed the bishop into holding a sermon?

Don't get me wrong. I love almost everything about this update, especially the streamlining of the management mechanics and the overhaul to crime. But this one decision just makes no sense to me.

That's exactly what I'm saying.. It makes no sense at all.

[Machiavelli]

i guess they changed it because it got in the way of other actions? still was more immersive though

[Holy Athena]

Originally posted by Machiavelli:

i guess they changed it because it got in the way of other actions? still was more immersive though

With everything else getting streamlined, it seems this was completely unecessary and not immersive.

[Asket]

They changed it because previously they introduced a "patch" where Bishop could not bribe w/o rings. So devs solved one problem and introduced another - Bishop cant ever scheme without rings ^)

So they need to invent a new way for that, i.e. force a player to give bishop rings - and that's why semons require rings.

Yep, that makes no sence. Yep, that's a crutch on top of crutch on top of crutch trying to fix a crutch - ultimately, that's a flaw in game design. Instead of solid foundation in a grand way for everything, devs invent 100500 smoll fixes and the final result is a mess.

[Asket]

For example, Dwarf Fortress - key element is Dorf's Thought. Everything revolves around it. Dorf see - Dorf feels - Dorf Acts.
Dorf is afraid - Dorf cant fight.
Dorf is happy - Dorf works well.
Dorf is under RAIN - dorf is unhappy.

etc.
And it does not mattter if Dorf is a noble, warrior or a peasant.

Another example - Rimworld. Pawn have needs. Needs affect mood.
No matter the mode (direct/inderect control), faction, travel mode, map, activity, equipment, diplomacy - happy pawn works well, unhappy pawn have a chance for mental breakdown.

Norland?

Well you see...
We have LORDS. We have PEASANTS. We have TRADERS. We have FREE LORDS. We have KNIGHTS, who are like LORDS, they can fight, like PEASANTS and LORDS, but they cant MANAGE. We also have SPIES, whom we cant interact with at all. Speaking about PEASANTS, as of previous update, you cant simply fight using them (as with LORDS or KNIGHTS or FREE LORDS), you can only fight with UNHAPPY PEASANTS or FANATICS, but not REGULAR PEASANTS. Oh, you also have BISHOP, yes, that's another unique kind of entitity/npc that dont fight, dont trade but you had to take into consideration.

^and this kind of unnecessary complications are everywhere.

Why cant we have Allies and have Vassals at the same time?
For example, I want to have an Alliance with one strong kingdom and have 1-2 small Vassals - that's impossible according to game's logic.
Why vassal's tribute is only being delivered through church's caravans? "The church blah blah" roleplay and so on, but no caravan for any reason = no money from vassals, that's nonsence.
What's even the point of using currency that is not controlled by your/kingdom and to pay villagers using that currency? Yes the game literally forces you to use those coins, but it's not a real economy, there is no supply vs demand - you can copy+paste best prices from game to game once you figure them out, or straight from the wiki, so what's the point? To add artificial "deep" into the game? Once you understand that Norland economy is flawed and you can only get money from MAGIC kingdom trade (magic, because other's kingdoms economies are not simulated, but rather cheated they should be perma-loosing gold as well) things become trivial.

And then comes another MAGICAL enemy armies of 60 armored axe'd ppl by day 50 at normal diff rushing through the whole Middle-earth only to wipe out your city with 2 lumberjacks, 15 rings and a pighouse.

WHOAH dudes, hold your horses!

[darth_lame-o]

I see. When you put it like that, suddenly it makes sense. I wonder why Hooded Horse couldn't just come out and say this was the reason for the change? Maybe they knew if they went into too much detail about this, they would (rightfully) get a lot of pushback for it.

Maybe Hooded Horse were the real plotters and schemers the whole time.

[Holy Athena]

Originally posted by Asket:

They changed it because previously they introduced a "patch" where Bishop could not bribe w/o rings. So devs solved one problem and introduced another - Bishop cant ever scheme without rings ^)

So they need to invent a new way for that, i.e. force a player to give bishop rings - and that's why semons require rings.

Yep, that makes no sence. Yep, that's a crutch on top of crutch on top of crutch trying to fix a crutch - ultimately, that's a flaw in game design. Instead of solid foundation in a grand way for everything, devs invent 100500 smoll fixes and the final result is a mess.

Thanks, I think that is the explanation. As stupid and illogical if that's the real reason why.

[Saxon]

So is it only the sermons that require holy rings? Or do we pay them for the temples to operate at all? For the sermons led by our nobles it kinda makes sense if we do a "sermon of doubt", which actively harms the church's interests inside their own house of worship. It never made sense to me that the bishop wouldn't find out somehow. Bribing the bishop into turning a blind eye to undermining him seems like a way to make it more immersive. But creating more fanatics at a higher rate and doing his work for him shouldn't require a bribe at all but rather RECEIVE rewards for playing a dangerous game.